How upset would you be?

[stumeister]

How upset would you be if the Pats took their first 4 picks and focused on making one element of the team potentially really really good.

Example 4 pics in the;
OL
DL
DB's
Receivers etc.......

This could give potential stability for many years in an important core area...

 

[mayoclinic]

Not at all.

I'd sell the rest of my draft to get both Aaron Donald and Dominique Easley; add those 2 guys along with a rangy LB like Christian Jones/Jordan Tripp and either a hybrid CB/S like Antone Exum or a hybrid LB/S like Kevin Pierre-Louis, and I think we'd have a top 2 defense that can hold opponents to under 15PPG and shut down even the top offenses. I think that would improve the team much more than anything else. I think you can find good OLs and TE depth on day 3, and UDFAs.

 

[Brady6]

How upset would you be if the Pats took their first 4 picks and focused on making one element of the team potentially really really good.

Example 4 pics in the;
OL
DL
DB's
Receivers etc.......

This could give potential stability for many years in an important core area...

I would not be that upset, but I do not see the need at DB at all, that group is already one of the two best in the NFL.

 

[stumeister]

I would not be that upset, but I do not see the need at DB at all, that group is already one of the two best in the NFL.

I agree with you I was just using that as an example.

 

[patchick]

How upset would you be if the Pats took their first 4 picks and focused on making one element of the team potentially really really good.

Example 4 pics in the;
OL
DL
DB's
Receivers etc.......

This could give potential stability for many years in an important core area...

I would be extremely upset, because it would be an obvious waste of draft value.

Think about the roster implications of what you've proposed. You have to displace FOUR current players in a single subsection of the roster. Not with four 1st-round picks, mind you, but with a late 1st, late 2nd, late 3rd, and late 4th.

By the time you get to that 4th player for the same unit, what are the chances that he's actually going to upgrade the roster? Compared to the chances of an upgrade by using that pick on a different unit that hasn't already added 3 superior players?

 

[everlong]

By the time you get to that 4th player for the same unit, what are the chances that he's actually going to upgrade the roster? Compared to the chances of an upgrade by using that pick on a different unit that hasn't already added 3 superior players?

1st rounder > Vollmer or at least equal and a swing option and insurance
2nd rounder > Conolly
3rd rounder > Wendell
4th rounder > Cannon

1st rounder > Chris Jones
2nd rounder > Tommy Kelly
3rd rounder > Vince Wilfork or at least a training year for the future
4th rounder > Bucannon\Bequette and a long term replacement for Nink

At least at those two position groupings it's not hard to imagine. We've got a lot of players that I'd rather see be moved to depth.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

1st rounder > Vollmer or at least equal and a swing option and insurance
2nd rounder > Conolly
3rd rounder > Wendell
4th rounder > Cannon

(A) My problem is not Wendell or Connolly per se; it seems that the combination of C Wendell–G Connolly is suboptimal.
(B) The only reason Cannon was available in the 5th round was that he was diagnosed with a treatable form of cancer at the Combine. Without that, he was probably a second-rounder at worst, maybe even a first-rounder.

 

[everlong]

(A) My problem is not Wendell or Connolly per se; it seems that the combination of C Wendell–G Connolly is suboptimal.
(B) The only reason Cannon was available in the 5th round was that he was diagnosed with a treatable form of cancer at the Combine. Without that, he was probably a second-rounder at worst, maybe even a first-rounder.

Even if you only replace one of Wendell and Connolly the problem is against the more physical DLs you are forced to help them on every play. The other team's DC knows this and it's an advantage. The Jets destroyed them last year.

Cannon very well may have been a second rounder but that doesn't mean he's a quality RT. He could be a better than average RG but I wouldn't say he is now.

 

[stumeister]

1st rounder > Vollmer or at least equal and a swing option and insurance
2nd rounder > Conolly
3rd rounder > Wendell
4th rounder > Cannon

1st rounder > Chris Jones
2nd rounder > Tommy Kelly
3rd rounder > Vince Wilfork or at least a training year for the future
4th rounder > Bucannon\Bequette and a long term replacement for Nink

At least at those two position groupings it's not hard to imagine. We've got a lot of players that I'd rather see be moved to depth.

I agree with what you are saying. With the possibility of one, I don't see the need for calling the moving van to Canton for any of them.

 

[patchick]

1st rounder > Vollmer or at least equal and a swing option and insurance
2nd rounder > Conolly
3rd rounder > Wendell
4th rounder > Cannon

I'm not convinced on all of these. Even the very first. Take a look at the tackle class and ask how confident you are that the 5th best of them will be an instant upgrade over Sebastian Vollmer -- and how much of an upgrade. Then compare to how much you could upgrade another position at the same point in the draft. And repeat four times.

IMO there is no chance that you'd get the best roster impact four times in a row at the same position/unit.

 

[manxman2601]

I'm not convinced on all of these. Even the very first. Take a look at the tackle class and ask how confident you are that the 5th best of them will be an instant upgrade over Sebastian Vollmer -- and how much of an upgrade. Then compare to how much you could upgrade another position at the same point in the draft. And repeat four times.

IMO there is no chance that you'd get the best roster impact four times in a row at the same position/unit.

And there's the assumption that all four prospects hit. How often do the first four prospects of any teams draft class all hit?

 

[everlong]

I'm not convinced on all of these. Even the very first. Take a look at the tackle class and ask how confident you are that the 5th best of them will be an instant upgrade over Sebastian Vollmer -- and how much of an upgrade. Then compare to how much you could upgrade another position at the same point in the draft. And repeat four times.

IMO there is no chance that you'd get the best roster impact four times in a row at the same position/unit.

If I could be positive Vollmer was healthy I'd agree. I don't like Cannon at tackle so that makes it worse.

1st Ronnie Lott
2nd Eric Wright
3rd Carlton Williamson
5th Lynn Thomas

Thomas wasn't a great player but was a key player as the nickle for the 81 championship team so there is precedence.

 

[everlong]

And there's the assumption that all four prospects hit. How often do the first four prospects of any teams draft class all hit?

I think that can be an argument for loading up at a position to make sure you hit on at least one or two so that overall the unit is upgraded.

 

[BobDigital]

Depends on the position. It is just a theoretical discussion cause contract considerations would never allow you to do it in most cases. However if it were possible I would only be willing to do it for certain positions as I think you need vets at ALMOST every spot to be successful no matter how talented you are if you want to have a real chance to win a SB.

I'd be willing to do it at DE, DT, LB & RB as I think all those positions are based highly on talent/ability.

OL can learn fast but you would get your QB killed during the first 8 games so even though they would be okay for the playoffs it is a non-starter.

Also QB, WR,TE, CB & S generally take a year and I don't see anyone able to win with an all rookie group of either without getting carried by overwhelming talent in other spots.

 

[stumeister]

IMO there is no chance that you'd get the best roster impact four times in a row at the same position/unit.

No one said the best, or even the best available at that position. I referred to making one element of the team potentially really really good. A unit that you could keep intact that would make an impact. Where you wouldn't have to worry about them as time goes on. Sure there are injury and contract concerns.

Lets be honest do any of our opposing teams worry about one complete element of our team? (Maybe back with Brady, Gronk, Welker and the one whos name I won't mention) Sure there are individual stand outs that they have to game plan for. Are there any real good 1-3 or 4 types in any one of of receivers, OL, DL, LB's or DB's as a group that causes opposing coaches to loose sleep?

For the sake of discussion, I would think having several really good players within the same element or team component would only make each other better and be more challenging for opponents.

 

[Avenger]

Revis Browner and McC would cause some to lose sleep

 

[Off The Grid]

I vote "Hell, no.", of course, along with everyone else. I am the World's ~ Planet X, For Those Scoring At Home ~ First Disciple of Concentrated Force...but burning all 4 Rounds on a narrow positional grouping is Arson.

Concentrated Force is attainable without torching the rest of the Roster. :nono:

 

[patchick]

I referred to making one element of the team potentially really really good. A unit that you could keep intact that would make an impact. Where you wouldn't have to worry about them as time goes on. Sure there are injury and contract concerns.

If that's what you hope to achieve with picks 29, 62, 93 & 130, I suspect you'll be disappointed. In fact, it would be absolutely extraordinary to come away with 4 good players at ANY position from those picks.

The last draft class that was considered ultra-rich was 2010. Let's take a look at the collections of single-unit talent you could have gotten with those picks that year.

DB: Kyle Wilson, Jerome Murphy, Kevin Thomas, Kam Chancellor

DL: Jerry Hughes, Alex Carrington, Everson Griffen, O'Brien Schofield

OL: Rodger Saffold, Charles Brown, Mike Johnson, Ed Wang

I think it's fair to say that not one of the groups would yield anything close to an elite unit.

Lets be honest do any of our opposing teams worry about one complete element of our team? (Maybe back with Brady, Gronk, Welker and the one whos name I won't mention) Sure there are individual stand outs that they have to game plan for. Are there any real good 1-3 or 4 types in any one of of receivers, OL, DL, LB's or DB's as a group that causes opposing coaches to loose sleep?

I'd say that's exactly what the team did with their defensive backfield in free agency.

 

[stumeister]

If that's what you hope to achieve with picks 29, 62, 93 & 130, I suspect you'll be disappointed. In fact, it would be absolutely extraordinary to come away with 4 good players at ANY position from those picks.

The last draft class that was considered ultra-rich was 2010. Let's take a look at the collections of single-unit talent you could have gotten with those picks that year.

DB: Kyle Wilson, Jerome Murphy, Kevin Thomas, Kam Chancellor

DL: Jerry Hughes, Alex Carrington, Everson Griffen, O'Brien Schofield

OL: Rodger Saffold, Charles Brown, Mike Johnson, Ed Wang

I think it's fair to say that not one of the groups would yield anything close to an elite unit.



I'd say that's exactly what the team did with their defensive backfield in free agency.

Good Points Cant argue with that.
Without digging how many people who made those picks still have jobs?

 

[Coach42]

I'm no draft expert but there is one thing I am certain of, going into the draft with a rigid plan and forcing positional picks to fill needs almost always leads to disaster. The odds of 4 straight players being the highest rated on your board are pretty slim. I would be horrified if it happened. I'm a disciple at the alter of BPA.